Don't forget that your Victory Points system tends to favour fast-moving warbands (skaven or possessed for example), whereas slow-moving characters like dwarves have literally no chance to reach the objective.We already talked about this during our games, Tom: remember that scenario with the wyrdstone shards, each counting as 2 Victory Points? It took poor old Patrick (playing dwarves) 5 turns to reach one wyrdstone, whereas your sprinting possessed (15' movement!!) grabbed two wyrdstones after 2 or 3 turns!Thus, I believe that this Victory Points system of yours tends to transform the game into a race, where the fastest warband always wins. So IMHO it's good to put some movement in the game and prevent "campers", but not perfect...

OHH I thought u meant like victory OBJECTIVEs ...like buildings that must be controlled at end of game or 10 turns or something like that ... - then Im AGAINST victory points !!! ...(or aleast play with chests ..ie. half movement when carrying and no running - so that warbands other than Skaven have a chance of catching a guy trying to carry it off-map!)

...mordheim should IMO primarily be a tactical war/skirmish game ...not a "who can run the fastest"-game ...high movement should give a tactical advantage, not be a strategic end in itself ! - atleast thats how I feel

I know that problem: We aren't playing any scenarios in our group where speed is of any relevance. Otherwise our Undead player would go on strike (he'd be glad to be able to move 3" x 2 = 6"). Ever played Breakthrough against Skaven? No fun at all...

I don't remember that there ever was a problem with VPs Tortiou Besides, the VP system was as follows:1 VP per Wyrdstone (not 2!)2 VP per Killn VPs per objective (taken/accomplished...)

Kills are more important than shards, thus dwarfs are not at a disadvantage. Also, please consider that Pat's warband is not very well balanced (he has way too few shooters, thanks to my bad advice... *shame*) and he is a novice player who does not always know how to exploit the strengh of his warband. I know that you think dwarfs are underpowered, but they are not. They have a massive disadvantage because they are slow, but a good player can make up for that by chosing the right equipment and the right warriors.

So I really don't see where this is unfair. Sorry.

All that taken into consideration, I will still "impose" VPs on our games, because it might not be "perfect" in your eyes but it is the best solution I know.

@ Boehm: Don't let Tortiou scare you with his talk about VPs being unfair. I have introduced VPs primarily to stop HIM from camping. Also: I would never introduce a rule that would disadvantage one player unfairly. Fairness is my primary concern.

But as always: making as many kills as possible is the goal (or taking the objectives) in order to win. Regardless of the race. If you are playing dwarfs than I assume that you are trying to build a warband that can hit as hard as possible, just like anyone else. So kills will always be well rewarded. I don't see how a rule that forces people to action can be unfair.

One last notice for Boehm: Please don't worry, we will do our best so that your dwarfs are not disadvantaged. If the scenario really requires it, we might give you a bigger deployment zone or the first turn or something. But bear in mind that your guys are damn slow. You'll have to deal with that (i.e. buy good armour and max out firepower, because you will certainliy NOT get a chance to charge, but will be on the recieving end).

Okay, this was a rather special game where neutral critters roamed the streets (trolls and giants) but as you can see, your system of 2 VP for wyrdstone was already there.

Anyway, if you changed your mind and decided to allow 2 VP per kill and only 1 VP per wyrdstone, that's fine by me. However, I don't see how this will stop me from camping as my Reiks would simply have to stick in a building and shoot the other guys passing by...

That's were I would like to put in my little idea: why not forget about those VPs and rather reward the warband that actually WINS the game? With your VPs system, a warband will try to reach the objectives to acquire as many VPs as possible, for what? just for the +1XP for the leader. As far as I know, this +1XP is the only advantage of winning a scenario.This means that a loser warband will not have this +1XP bonus but still have all the XP of kills and surviving the battle, as allowed in the post-battle sequence. Thus, it is more tactical to "camp" and not take any risks (so that everybody survives and gains XP) rather than try to reach the objectives to win the game (with only +1XP for your leader as a reward).Why not reward the winning warband with a "prize" ? Like a piece of equipment for example, or more wyrdstone in the PBS?That way, everybody would be eager to win a game and to rush forward to accomplish the objectives...

About campers: Firstly, there is this little rule that allows you to "hide" your models. Secondly, there are torches available from the Empire in Flames supplement. For BTB we have a section devoted to Fire Rules (mostly a collection of officially released material), which allows you set buildings aflame. Just some food for though.

But bear in mind that your guys are damn slow. You'll have to deal with that (i.e. buy good armour and max out firepower, because you will certainliy NOT get a chance to charge, but will be on the recieving end).

oh I do ...and actually I have yet to have experienced any real difficulties with getting to charge - ofcause my opponets were not as experienced tacticians as you guys are sure to be

why not forget about those VPs and rather reward the warband that actually WINS the game?

I thought that was the whole idea behind VPs ...to decide who wins?? ...

Now there are quite many possible VP conditions, but first of - we must ask ourselves what is it we try to achieve with VPs:

- Is it just fluff?- Is it to reward xp for things other than kills?- Is it to introduce extra income into the game (ie. wyrdstone)?- Is it to FORCE players to advance / maneuvre around the middle of the table rather than just setting up shop in some building(s) in their setup zone? Or merely reward those that do so?- Should it be possible to "win" by running/maneuvering without even fighting? (ie. in the scenario: "breakthrough" a fast warband can possible win against a slow one without any real fighting)

Personally, I prefer scenarios where they CAN ideed be won without fighting ...However, ONLY after a minimum set of turns (8 or so) , so in reality the victory condition merely forces players to act - to do something !

Also, I feel that most scenarios should at the most give out extra bonus limited to maximum 2-3 xp total / 1-3 wyrstone total. - I have unfortunately seen some scenarios online which are just IMO insane in the amount of bonus xp / wyrdstone handed out!

Now when it comes to the specific scenarios, I prefer scenarios which do not give a clear advantage to either the "attacker" or the "defender" IMO scenarios are quite unfair in that regard ...also IMO a good scenario should have multiple objectives or atleast an objective which can be achived in several different ways - so as to give some scope as to which strategy to employ. (Im a wargamer what can I say )

Anyway - that was a few loose thoughts ...now ofcause the difficult part is to actually construct the scenarios in such a way as to hopefully both be interesting, fun AND balanced ....

EDIT: anyway ...Im just sort of brainstorming ...if playing simply with a few scattered wyrdstone shards ...then lets atleast have them imbedded/buried/hidden beneath "something" ...so that it takes a full turn for a model to "dig it out" - that way a fast warband cant simply snatch them up and run away in one turn

That gives me a lot of food for thought.... Here's my first impression though.

1) Good idea. The best thing to do that is to combine it with an objective: e.g. there are chests on the table. The player with most warriors standing (not knocked down/Stunned) within 6" of it after 6 turns gets to keep the contents. Rewards more than 1 player possibly.

2) Consider the above. Also: VPs are what determines the winner (as Boehm correctly formulated). Therefore VPs should encourage people to move out and take objectives, in order to accumulate VPs, and thus in order to win after a set number of turns by having most VPs.

3) While I think the idea is very funny, I would like to solve this problem with as little special effects as possible. This could be fun for ONE scenario though!

On a little sidenote, please also bear the following in mind:

Spirit. Please play within the spirit of the scenarios! Players who take absolutely no risks and expect their opponents to do so will be forced to change their tactics or forfeit a round.

Well, I didn't mean to push the rules. I just wanted to ... move them a bit into everyone's focus. You'd have to declare which building can be set on fire anyways. Whatever. It's your Mordheim weekend, I don't want to spoil it. <insert peace smiley here>

EDIT: By the way, how come there's no thread with loads of pics of your gaming table and scenery, Tom? I can't believe that!

Wow, this is a hard decision. But to be frank, I think that we are all a little tired of all the poll taking and since the last vote is void (only 4 people out of 6 voted, myself not included) I have taken a decision.

Should experienced warbands be allowed?

I carefully weighed the pros and cons of the question, and I ended up deciding that...